seated
ACT's Seats The Most Costly In The House
Thursday, 5 March 2009 - 4:28pm
By Kate Chapman of NZPA Wellington, March 5 NZPA -
"The ACT Party's five plush green leather chairs in Parliament's debating chamber are worth almost $230,000 each -- more than any of the other seats." - 0r $1,142,087 on their whole campaign.
Those seats better be pretty comfortable.
Obviously, Kate isn't talking about the leather chairs themselves. She's commenting on how much ACT paid to have the right to sit in them.
Good old ACT, spending the money to get the power.
It's also interesting to note a few other party's bids for seats:
"The Kiwi Party, founded by Larry Baldock and Gordon Copeland, spent $56,545 and also failed to win a single seat." - sad.
"The political wing of Destiny Church, The Family Party led by Richard Lewis, spent $184,457 and came away with no seats." - tragic.
posted by Lydie at
12:00 pm
8 Comments:
LOL Lyd
Terrible, so now its money not ideas which get people power.
The sad reality of our "Democracy"
It's not just money Simeon. Surely even if I spent double ACT's campaign budget, but promoted a host of racist policies, I would not win even one seat.
I reckon, it's your money, you should be allowed to do with it whatever you like, so long as it is not immoral.
I'd agree. It's not just money that gets you into power Simeon - and in this case the main catylist was 'change'. Act promoted that (and spent a lot of money) and as a result they won the seats.
Aye! ACT wouldn't campaign on an ambiguous term such as "change"! That was National's winning point. ACT campaigned primarily on principled policies designed to improve New Zealand's economy.
hmmm... they were still going for a change in policies though. I didn't mean they actually used the term in their campaigning, but change was still a big focus for them.
"change" means nothing. It's utterly ambiguous... you know it!
Andy, ACT did use the 'ambiguous' term 'change' to the same extent as National. Act was constantly saying we need a change in direction. My question to them was 'a change to what??' Very Very ambiguous.
No wonder they needed so much money to get their very ambiguous message across.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home